Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is essentially a political jurisprudential case study of two labor disputes and their judicial aftermaths. The two cases studied are the highly publicized Laval and Viking cases, and the theoretical model employed is Alec Stone Sweet's model on judicialization and the construction of governance. The paper is made up of six sections. After the introductory section, I introduce the reader to Stone Sweet's model, explaining its basic concepts and the logics under which it operates. Thereafter I give a short account of some of the empirical studies in which Stone Sweet has employed that same model. In the two sections that follow, I give a historical overview of the Swedish model of industrial relations and a summary of the Laval and Viking cases. Finally, in section five I bring together all the elements of the preceding three sections, by employing Stone Sweet's model on the two cases in order to analyze the causes of the conflicts and their ramifications for the Swedish model of industrial relations. The study produces two findings worthy of interest. First, it lends further empirical support to the validity of Stone Sweet's model, by showing how micro-level events (two isolated labor disputes) can lead to macro-level change (the judicialization of the Swedish model of industrial relations). In this regard, it also extends the use of Stone Sweet's model into policy areas and processes - the free movement of services and Europeanization, respectively - on which it has not previously been employed. Second, the study adds some valuable insights into the motivations and dynamics that drive labor market disputes in general, and the parties involved in the Laval dispute in particular. Although it is this process-tracking which is the main purpose of the study, I also make some predictions about what we can expect to happen to the Swedish model of industrial relations in the future. In this regard, the study finds that we are likely to see an ever-increasing influence of litigation and adjudication in the field of industrial relations, and that considerations of the behavior of the judiciary will become increasingly important in determining whether to resort to collective action in labor disputes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".